Fair and Feasible Governance of Marine Geoengineering

BackgroundGeoengineering, “a broad set of methods and technologies that aim to deliberately alter the climate system,”[1] has been hailed by some as a solution to the climate crisis. A focus on marine cloud brightening, marine carbon dioxide removal, sea ice enhancement, and other technologies have put the ocean in the center of the discussion. Actors as informal as individuals and small start-ups, and as significant as major corporations and countries, have begun piloting experiments and selling carbon credits. Geoengineering technologies are backed by venture capitalists and governments that have the capacity to invest.The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea recently advised that under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, parties have the obligation to take all measures necessary to prevent, reduce and control marine pollution resulting from the use of technologies under their jurisdiction or control and warned that geoengineering techniques that transform one type of pollution into another would be contrary to the Convention.Against this backdrop, a growing number of scientists, decisionmakers, and human rights advocates have been examining the assumptions and actions of this burgeoning industry and have identified the following concerns:pilot studies are being funded and conducted without scientific backing, and with only a superficial understanding of potential impacts or benefits, no proper consultation is being carried out, and there is currently no policy, regulatory or governance framework that consistently and specifically addresses risk and impact assessment of geoengineering proposals for activities taking place beyond, and in many cases within, national jurisdictions. While the Oxford Principles[2] offer an important foundation, it is evident that these activities must be brought within a governance structure that rigorously adheres to scientific credibility and respect for human rights, using the Precautionary Principle as a guide. Relying on both existing instruments and novel investigation, we offer three sets of framing questions and directions for a coherent governance approach that we will develop over the coming year. Filling the Governance Void Scaling Oversight Marine geoengineering technologies conducted within national jurisdictions could impact other States as well as areas beyond national jurisdiction.Can a coherent governance regime be built to address the varying short, medium and long term considerations? How far into the future should we consider impacts, both positive and negative? How do we assign spatial jurisdiction and therefore assign responsibility and accountability?   Recognizing Stakeholders The sphere of influence for marine geoengineering is broad.Who has rights under geoengineering and what are those stakeholder rights? How should surveillance be balanced with individual rights? Who should be consulted and informed?   Adapting to Change Money and geopolitics can influence policy and governance, and shifts in technology can render regulations obsolete.How can we ensure that the governance of geoengineering is robust to both endogenous and exogenous change? How do we make wise use of existing instruments, (g., the London Protocol)? What justification should be required for geoengineering to be considered? [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_AnnexIII_FINAL.pdf [2] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10584-012-0675-2